The Journal of Soft Computing and Artificial Intelligence (JSCAI) applies a double-blind peer review process for manuscripts submitted to the journal.
In the double-blind peer review process, the identities of both authors and reviewers are kept confidential. Authors do not know the identities of reviewers, and reviewers do not know the identities of authors.
The peer review process is designed to ensure the scientific quality, originality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, and relevance of submitted manuscripts to the journal’s Aim & Scope.
Initial Editorial Screening
All submitted manuscripts are first evaluated by the editorial office before being sent to reviewers.
At this stage, manuscripts are checked for:
Relevance to the journal’s Aim & Scope
Compliance with the Author Guidelines
Completeness of manuscript files and metadata
Language quality and academic clarity
Similarity and plagiarism
Ethical declarations
Research ethics compliance, where applicable
Copyright and licensing compliance
Scientific suitability for peer review
Manuscripts that are outside the journal scope, do not comply with the journal policies, have serious ethical problems, contain inappropriate similarity, or do not meet basic academic standards may be rejected before peer review.
Similarity and Plagiarism Check
All manuscripts are checked for similarity and plagiarism during the editorial process.
The similarity report is evaluated by the editorial office. The overall similarity percentage is not the only criterion; the nature, source, and distribution of similarity are also considered.
The journal does not accept plagiarism, inappropriate text recycling, duplicate publication, data fabrication, data falsification, citation manipulation, or unethical authorship practices.
Manuscripts with serious ethical concerns may be rejected at any stage of the editorial process.
Reviewer Assignment
Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers who have expertise in the relevant subject area.
Reviewers are selected according to their academic expertise, publication record, research field, and absence of conflict of interest.
Reviewers must evaluate manuscripts objectively, confidentially, constructively, and in accordance with academic and ethical standards.
Reviewer Responsibilities
Reviewers are expected to evaluate the manuscript according to the following criteria:
Originality and scientific contribution
Relevance to the journal’s Aim & Scope
Clarity of the research problem
Appropriateness of the methodology
Validity of the results
Quality of analysis and discussion
Adequacy of references
Ethical compliance
Clarity of language and presentation
Contribution to the fields of soft computing, artificial intelligence, machine learning, computational intelligence, or intelligent systems
Reviewers should provide clear, constructive, respectful, and evidence-based comments that help authors improve the quality of their manuscripts.
Confidentiality
All manuscripts under review are treated as confidential documents.
Reviewers must not share, discuss, copy, distribute, or use any part of the manuscript before publication.
Information obtained during the peer review process must not be used for personal, academic, commercial, or competitive advantage.
Conflict of Interest in Peer Review
Reviewers must decline the review invitation if they have any conflict of interest with the manuscript, authors, institutions, funding bodies, or research topic.
Potential conflicts of interest may include financial, personal, academic, institutional, or collaborative relationships.
If a conflict of interest is identified after accepting the review invitation, the reviewer must immediately inform the editorial office.
Review Reports
Reviewer reports should be clear, objective, respectful, and scientifically justified.
Reviewers should avoid personal criticism and should focus on the scientific content of the manuscript.
Reviewer comments should help the editor make an informed decision and help the author improve the manuscript.
Editorial Decision
After receiving reviewer reports, the Editor-in-Chief or assigned qualified editor evaluates the reports and makes an editorial decision.
Possible decisions include:
Accept
Minor Revision
Major Revision
Reject
The final decision is based on reviewer reports, editorial assessment, scientific quality, ethical compliance, originality, methodological rigor, and relevance to the journal scope.
The Editor-in-Chief has final responsibility for editorial decisions.
Revision Process
If revision is requested, authors must submit a revised manuscript together with a detailed response letter.
The response letter should explain how each reviewer and editor comment has been addressed.
Authors should clearly indicate the changes made in the revised manuscript.
Revised manuscripts may be sent back to the same reviewers or evaluated by the editor, depending on the nature and extent of the revisions.
Rejection Before or After Review
A manuscript may be rejected before peer review if it is outside the journal scope, does not comply with the Author Guidelines, lacks scientific originality, contains serious methodological weaknesses, has poor language quality, contains ethical problems, or does not meet the basic academic standards of the journal.
A manuscript may be rejected after peer review if reviewer reports and editorial evaluation indicate that the manuscript does not meet the scientific, ethical, methodological, or editorial standards of JSCAI.
Editorial Independence
Editorial decisions are made independently and are not influenced by the journal owner, publisher, institutions, sponsors, advertisers, financial considerations, political factors, personal relationships, or any external parties.
Decisions are based only on the scientific merit, originality, methodological quality, ethical compliance, peer review outcomes, and relevance of the manuscript to the journal’s Aim & Scope.
Review Timeline
JSCAI aims to complete the peer review process in a timely and responsible manner.
However, the duration of the review process may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, revision requirements, ethical checks, and editorial workload.
Authors can follow the status of their manuscripts through the DergiPark submission system.
Appeals and Complaints
Authors may submit an appeal if they believe that an editorial decision was made based on a misunderstanding, factual error, or procedural problem.
Appeals must be submitted with a clear explanation and supporting evidence.
The editorial office evaluates appeals objectively, confidentially, and in accordance with the journal’s ethical principles.
Submitting an appeal does not guarantee that the editorial decision will be changed.
Ethical Concerns During Peer Review
If ethical concerns are identified during peer review, the editorial office may request clarification, additional documentation, raw data, ethics committee approval, consent information, or other supporting evidence from the authors.
In cases of serious ethical misconduct, the manuscript may be rejected, and further action may be taken in accordance with the journal’s Ethical Principles and Publication Policy.
Final Statement
The peer review process is conducted to protect the scientific quality, academic integrity, ethical standards, and reliability of JSCAI.
The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for ensuring that the peer review process is fair, confidential, objective, independent, and consistent with the journal’s publication policies.